Several parts of the Book of Mormon are highly influenced by the text of deutero-Isaiah. The traditional problem here is that deutero-Isaiah (chapters 40-55) are usually considered to be written fairly late – usually dated to during the exile in Babylon. Contrary to what some members say, the dating isn’t just assuming that prophecy is impossible. Rather the text makes assumptions of the audience that just don’t work earlier. A good example is the presumption that Jerusalem has already been destroyed. <\/p>\n
While there are some figures who support an unified Isaiah[1] I confess I just don’t find persuasive their answers to the critics argument regarding a later date. Even if one buys some of the literary claims, that’s typically possible for a later editor bringing the various works together.<\/p>\n
How then do we deal with this problem of a significant set of texts quoted by Nephi and others after they left Jerusalem<\/i>?<\/p>\n
First let me note that I am far from an expert here. This is me thinking through the issue not claiming everything works. Nor do I really see this as an apologetic work. Rather I see it as taking seriously the arguments about deutero-Isaiah. Second let me state up front that I take as an assumption that the Book of Mormon is a loose translation in terms of content.[2] This means that often quotes or paraphrases of KJV language were used to translate ideas or texts not directly related to the source texts in the KJV Bible. The implication of this is that with a few exceptions what matters are extended quotations not a verse or phrase here or there. I consider the latter primarily artifacts of the way the text was translated. In making the following arguments I’m making extensive use of David P. Wright’s “Joseph Smith’s Interpretation of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon.”<\/a> It was the original argument against deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. I use it because it contains a convenient source of arguments. However in sticking with it I recognize I’m not being comprehensive to all the arguments about date.<\/p>\n The usual Mormon response to deutero-Isaiah is that it was based upon separate prophetic works that were on the brass plates. Those original sources for deutero-Isaiah were then heavily edited\/redacted during the exile to fit more with the concerns of that community with the usual dating for the final form of deutero-Isaiah. That is a later editor added in more specific locations and events. Since the Book of Mormon is a loose translation that relies heavily on the KJV to translate similar ideas this means that the KJV of deutero-Isaiah was used along with many of the later edits from the exile and after the exile. <\/p>\n The main problematic areas are 1 Nephi 22 (quoting Isaiah 49:22-3); 1 Nephi 20-22 (quoting Isaiah 48-49); 2 Nephi 6-8 (quoting Isaiah 49-51); Mosiah 12-15 (quoting Isaiah 52-53 albeit in a weird way); and then a few more minor quotes in 1 Nephi 10:8 (Isaiah 40:3); 1 Nephi 17:3 (Isaiah 45:18); 2 Nephi 10:9 (Isaiah 49:23) and the afore mentioned Mosiah 27:31 (Isaiah 45:23).[3] Interestingly Trito-Isaiah doesn’t appear in the Book of Mormon.<\/p>\n Thus the main texts of deutero-Isaiah that Nephi has access to in some form are Isaiah 49:22-55:2 (with parts of 53 & 54 missing) There are then three other verses. One in 40:3 and then 45:18,23. The quote of 45:18,23 is interesting as it’s Nephi defending building the ship. While not quotations it contains allusions to many other texts making one almost think he’s quoting a pre-existing text. So one theory (again very speculative) is that either this is an artifact of language for the loose translation or else there’s some early poetic text that gets cut up with portions ending up in deutero-Isaiah and possibly trito-isaiah. (See for example Isaiah 66:1 with 1 Nephi 17:39. It’s not a quotation but there are similarities.)<\/p>\n What’s most interesting is what parts of deutero-Isaiah are excluded from the Book of Mormon. Typically these are the very parts that scholars use to argue for a late date for deutero-Isaiah. Wright gives arguments for the late date on page 183 of his article. However note how many of these are missing from the Book of Mormon.<\/p>\n 1. Speaking as destruction has happened<\/b> Only 49:14-21 is in 1 Ne 21:14-21 The rest of the deutero-Isaiah parts about past tense destruction aren’t in the Book of Mormon.<\/p>\n 2. Mesopotamia as place of destruction and Babylonians fading from picture<\/b> Those parts of deutero-Isaiah are not in the Book of Mormon.<\/p>\n 3. Temple and city of Jerusalem destroyed<\/b> Only the afore mentioned 1 Ne 21:14-21 and partial quote of Wright’s Isaiah 52:1-10 of which verse 7-10 is quoted in Mosiah 12:21-4 and Mosiah 15:29-31. But that part really doesn’t speak of them as destroyed but merely the transient nature of mortals compared to God. <\/p>\n 4. Release from captivity imminent<\/b> Isaiah 49:22-26 is quoted in 1 Nephi 22:6,8; 2 Nephi 6:6; and 2 Nephi 10:9. However most of the use in the Book of Mormon are either part of an eschatological vision of the future unrelated to the Babylonian context (1 Ne 11 sees it as a future dispersal apparently tied more to the Roman diaspora) and often tied to the gentiles (say 2 Ne 6:6; 10:8) So one could easily read that not as tied to Babylon but a quotation from a far more vague diasporah\/gathering proto-text. The more explicit Babylonian parts of the text are missing from the Book of Mormon.<\/p>\n 5. Cyrus<\/b> Missing in the Book of Mormon.<\/p>\n 6. Look forward to bounteous return from Babylon<\/b> This is the weaker argument I should note but of the verses only the afore mentioned 49:22-26 are in the Book of Mormon.<\/p>\n So surprisingly most of the problematic parts of deutero-Isaiah are missing from the Book of Mormon. If those are later additions to a text already existing in some form around the time of Josiah then the problem disappears. The only problematic section to explain in that case is 49:14-21<\/a>. I don’t want to deny those verses are problematic but I’m not sure they are as problematic as some say.<\/p>\n Consider that there were two conquests of Jerusalem by Babylon. The first was a siege in 597<\/a> which was part of a war started in 605 BC by Nebuchadnezzar II. During the initial war Jehoiakim switched allegiance from Egypt to Babylon. When the Babylonians were rebuffed by the Egyptians they switched back leading to the siege. Nebuchadnezzar then installed Zedekiah on the throne, took the King prisoner, took the temple treasures, and took 10,000 people back to Babylon.<\/p>\n It is after this that Lehi is prophesying. So the events described in Isaiah 49:14-21 might well refer to this conquest and exile and not the final one that took place after Lehi left. In particular verse 17 might suggest the initial pullback by Babylon after Zedekiah is put in place as a puppet. Indeed one might well argue that the political faction supporting turning back to Egypt again against Babylon appealed to precisely these verses against Lehi and Jeremiah to make their case.<\/p>\n It’s worth noting that a popular contemporary theory on proto-Isaiah (the earlier chapters of the book) is that the poetic parts were written by Isaiah while the prose parts are later midrashic-like commentary on those original poems and date to the time of Josiah. (See for example John Goldingay’s Isaiah<\/i><\/a> commentary) I bring this up both because this somewhat corresponds to what we find in the Book of Mormon with its use of Isaiah but also because this would have likely been in the lifetime of Lehi. That is the Book of Isaiah already would have been seen as a scroll with the original text of Isaiah along with commentary and other works added. If there were initial prophecies of deutero-Isaiah being composed at the time of Lehi they may well have ended up on the brass plates if they were associated with the larger text just as the commentary was.<\/p>\n